Topic: V3 output: digi or analog?

[Cobiwan]

I've been reading up on the V3 (should be delivered today) in some old threads, specifically about using it with a HD-P2. My question is what output should I use between the V3 to the deck: Digi or analog? Some say digi 100%, while others say that the analog is better sounding. Most of threads I was reading are quite old so I'm asking for input from today's perspective. I know it may a be subjective subject. I couldn't decide whether to put this in preamp/ad or recorder section, so I put it here, go figure.
Thanks for your help,
Coby

[Cobiwan]

Not sure how to determine that, but that's a start. Thanks Jon! (Tinybox order coming very soon)

[Gutbucket]

If your target recording format on the Tascam is 16bits, it may be technically advantageous to use the V3 digital output with the digital noise-shaping dither function engaged (I forget the acronym Grace uses for it, A-something), which is designed to provide somewhat more usable dynamic range than either unit's 16bit direct conversion setting.  I've never used that myself as I'm always recording 24bits from the digital output.

If your target recording format on the Tascam is 24bits, the noise-shaped dithering function doesn't apply and you won't want it engaged on the V3.

You can bench test the various setups and base your choice on the test results, but the practical answer to "which is better sounding" is probably to simply try it both ways and subjectivley decide which you prefer.

Outside of differences in sonics and ADC dynamic range performance, a practical advantage of using the V3 digital output is that the V3 metering will accurately reflect the level being recorded on the HD-P2.  The V3 meters are well implemented and simple to read at a glance which makes checking levels easy.  They feature peak-hold indicator lights with a manual reset button- so it will retain an indication that peak-clipping occured until you return to check it and reset the indicators.

With an analog connection, you'll need to accurately calibrate the analog input level of the HD-P2 to the analog output level of the V3 to do that.  The alternative is to ignore the V3 meter reading and monitor recording levels using the HD-P2 meters.

[Cobiwan]

Thanks GB, as I said I'm sure it's subjective and need to do a comp for my own ears. I usually do 24 bit so I don't really have a need to use the ANSR function. I just read some folks a while back commenting how they run analog out, which is hotter signal but had more of a desired effect on the transparency or that "V3" sound. Again, probably subjective.

[Cobiwan]

V3 just arrived. On a different note, the serial # is V3009. Is that 009 or 3009? Can't tell if the V3 is a pre number or if it's just the V.
Thanks for help with the new gear, much appreciated.

[Gutbucket]

Read that as V3 #009.

That early model may output an inverted polarity signal on the digital output, unless it has been corrected.  There was also a firmware chip update which affects the compatability of the digital output with some digital inputs.  If you are unsure as to either of these things ask the seller.  Information about both is on the Grace website.  Grace probably has a database indicating which units have been corrected by serial number.  The units were returned to Grace for the polarity fix, and replacement chips were sent to users who provided the serial numbers of their units for the firmware fix for them to install themselves.

[Cobiwan]

Thanks for that info/caveat GB. Mine actually came with papers from Grace stating the polarity mod was done in '06, giving it a bench test with results. As always you are a wealth of information.

[Marshall7]

Read that as V3 #009.

Interesting.  For some reason I always thought of mine as being #3016, but now that you point this out, it's unlikely they ever made that many.  So...#16 it is!

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Many years ago, back when we did more comps on TS, I posted some blind comps here comparing the a/d of the v3 to the r09 (the original).

Very surprisingly, most people preferred the r09 a/d blind over the v3. Really shocking. In both cases the recording format was 24 bits. The importance of those comps was to never assume which source you would prefer. I always thought the v3 a/d sounded cleaner. It could certainly take a hotter signal. Who knew?

The r09 is quite limited in the signal level it can accept. So in order to do that comp you need to not run as much gain on the v3. With any recording combo, the question of front end gain is important to the sound. Also, for a separate a/d, the amount of gain at the a/d is also important to the sound.

When I posted comps of the v3 > 722, gain was not so much of an issue because the 722 can take the hot signal. Folks typically preferred the 722 a/d. The a/d on the 722 is very good.

So what would sound best for you really depends.  I'd also look at how hot of a signal you send the hd-p2, and the gain setting on the input. Hotter is not necessarily better.

[DSatz]

it-goes, a listening preference comparison is very different from an audio quality comparison. People very often prefer audio components that have various technical defects, such as slightly-to-moderately elevated bass response and/or distortion (= "warmth") or slightly-to-moderately elevated upper midrange response (= "detail"). And even a fraction of a dB difference in average listening level will nearly always cause people to favor the louder track--particularly if they're not aware that it's a tiny bit louder.

None of that is arcane or rarified knowledge. Back in the days of hifi stores, salesmen used this knowledge to sell whatever their manager wanted them to sell--and the customers thought that they'd picked the Ohm or Rectilinear speakers over the (much better but less profitable for the store to sell) other speakers in a scientific manner.

The thing about any listening preference comparison is that it always occurs in a specific context. You start with a certain pickup that was made with a certain pair of mikes in a certain place, on a certain band, with their particular PA system, in a certain hall. If your A/Ds sound different from one another, one of them will probably make a better-sounding recording from the signals that they're given to work with, for a given listener. But if any of those variables had been very different--different mikes, a different band or PA system, different mike placement or a different room--the preference comparison could very well have gone the other way. It's meaningful for that one recording and that one set of circumstances, but that's all.

--best regards

[F.O.Bean]

Well, I ran a V3 from 2003>2009 I think, and I ran it with an SD 722 from 2006>2009, so this is MY opinion. I, as well as many tapers, preferred the ADC of the SD 722 over the V3s ADC. So most of the time, I would run mics>V3>XLR>722 so that I used the 722s ADC. I think you should try both ways, because you may actually prefer the HDP2s ADC over the V3s ADC. Ease of use? Definitely the DIGI OUT. Soundwise, its up to you to decide

[KenH]

I've been running Neumann KM184s > V3 [analog out XLR] > HDP2 @ 24/48 for the last few years.
Prior to that, I ran the mics > V3 @ 24/48 [digi-out AES>Coax ] > HDP2.

I really like the sound of V3 [analog out XLR] > HDP2 @ 24/48.   The P2's ADC produces better results to my ears.

The P2 input levels stay at 0. Once the levels on the V3 show on the P2 at the levels you want, you're all set.

You might be able to find some samples of each here: http://archive.org/search.php?query=%22ken%20hannan%22%20AND%20collection%3Aetree

Another thing you can do is simultaneously use the V3 ADC and XLR outs, which I've done.    Analog outs to the P2, digi out to another unit for comps.

[Brian Skalinder]

I may be in the minority, but I absolutely love the sound of the V3 ADC / digital-out.  As others have said, try it both ways...and make sure to let us know what you think. 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I may be in the minority, but I absolutely love the sound of the V3 ADC / digital-out.  As others have said, try it both ways...and make sure to let us know what you think. 

Whew!  I was a little worried that you hadn't chimed in with your preference for the v3's AD, which I recall very well

I think those were my favorite comps ever because they were fairly rigorous, there were multiple examples, it was a blind poll, and most of all the outcome defied common expectations.

I kinda think folks' preference for the v3 > r09 may have been more due to the warmth of the r09, because I always felt the v3 a/d was more detailed and clearer.  But who knows.

For many reasons I wish I still had my v3.. and my 722.  Comparing the m10 to the 722 a/d, and comparing the v3 to the m10 would be good comps.  Ironically, I do still have my Microtrack

[Brian Skalinder]

i-g-t-e- -- Yeah, those comps were fun, I agree.  You still have your Microtrack?  It's too small for a door stop.  Paper weight? 

I, too, miss my V3.  And my 722.  And a variety of other gear -- top notch stuff.  But boy do I find the FR-2LE a great value.

[rodeen]

Momentarily off topic..

In defense of the Microtrack, mine saved the day a couple of weeks ago.  As I was walking out the door to a show I decided to reformat the SD card in my DR100mkii and accidentally did a full format instead of a quick format.  2 hours later the format finished just in time for the second set of the show.  Fortunately I grabbed my MT which has been idle for two years, got enough of a charge on the battery while driving to the show for it to boot and it worked flawlessly as a fill-in recorder for the first set.  They are great little bit buckets.  Same ADC chip as the V3, isn't it?